is a University Education good value for money ?

redddraggon

mrushton wrote:

schweiz wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

schweiz wrote:

well regarded university

huh?

He's at Salford Uni. It has a good reputation and high entry requirements (well it did when I was a lad)

Times have changed and they'll take anyone - even Will! There are some good courses but there is some cr*p as well

To be fair to Will, at least he's taking his course seriously. Salford might do well against other similar level institutions, it's got to be a lot better than somewhere like "Glyndwr University", but I'd consider a "well regarded university" as probably one from the Russell Group or the 1994 Group.

mrushton

Nah, Salford is seriously sliding down the league tables of Uni's. Depending what you read it's #96 or #100. It was #62 in 2008 and was higher than that.

redddraggon

spen666 wrote:

a) what job each poster here does
b) whether they went to University / Poly
c) if yes to b) whether it was before/ after fees were introduced

a) PhD student in materials
b) yes
c) UG was 2005-2009

schweiz

redddraggon wrote:

mrushton wrote:

schweiz wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

schweiz wrote:

well regarded university

huh?

He's at Salford Uni. It has a good reputation and high entry requirements (well it did when I was a lad)

Times have changed and they'll take anyone - even Will! There are some good courses but there is some cr*p as well

To be fair to Will, at least he's taking his course seriously. Salford might do well against other similar level institutions, it's got to be a lot better than somewhere like "Glyndwr University", but I'd consider a "well regarded university" as probably one from the Russell Group or the 1994 Group.

OK, it’s not a top university but I was trying to differentiate the University of Salford from something like what Oldham College has become which is “University Campus Oldham part of The University of Huddersfield”

IIRC BBC in Maths, Physics and another subject A-Level were required in 1996 for entry onto an Aeromechanical Engineering degree, so not all that easy to get into.

MattC59

spen666 wrote:

It would have been interesting to know:

a) what job each poster here does
b) whether they went to University / Poly
c) if yes to b) whether it was before/ after fees were introduced

a) Sales Manager - Process control and safety instrumentation.
b) Sheffield Uni - Engineering with Business Studies.
c) Before fees were introduced (just), but I recieved no grant and took out student loans. Graduate salary £12,500, no problem paying the loans off. Had a great time and p*ssed most of it up at wall

mrushton

schweiz wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

mrushton wrote:

schweiz wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

schweiz wrote:

well regarded university

huh?

He's at Salford Uni. It has a good reputation and high entry requirements (well it did when I was a lad)

Times have changed and they'll take anyone - even Will! There are some good courses but there is some cr*p as well

To be fair to Will, at least he's taking his course seriously. Salford might do well against other similar level institutions, it's got to be a lot better than somewhere like "Glyndwr University", but I'd consider a "well regarded university" as probably one from the Russell Group or the 1994 Group.

They tie themselves in with the University so the degree is validated. It may actually be a section of Uni. of Huddersfield. the world of Universities is a strange one and is run as club in some respects. However, if they were businesses, many would have failed years ago.

OK, it’s not a top university but I was trying to differentiate the University of Salford from something like what Oldham College has become which is “University Campus Oldham part of The University of Huddersfield”

IIRC BBC in Maths, Physics and another subject A-Level were required in 1996 for entry onto an Aeromechanical Engineering degree, so not all that easy to get into.

daviesee

spen666 wrote:

It would have been interesting to know:

a) what job each poster here does
b) whether they went to University / Poly
c) if yes to b) whether it was before/ after fees were introduced

a) Freelance Engineering Designer (1/2 way between Draughtsman & Engineer).
b) HNC on an apprenticeship.
c) Before. I went for the apprenticeship because my parents couldn't afford to send me to Uni and that was before tuition fees. (Actually they don't apply up here but that's another issue. Watch this flame up now!).

I am glad I went down the apprenticeship route as it set me up with some education while earning money and more importantly, experience. The Government should shift the focus away from everyone going to Uni "just 'cos that's what you do" and restart the apprenticeship schemes. The industries may have changed but the principle still applies.

schweiz

daviesee wrote:

The Government should shift the focus away from everyone going to Uni "just 'cos that's what you do" and restart the apprenticeship schemes. The industries may have changed but the principle still applies.

+100

but the problem is that industry has got out of the habit of paying for apprenticeships and now won't pay for the number of apprenticeships needed and then they moan graduates don't have the skills they require. And if the government can't afford to to pay for students, it will claim can't afford to subsidise apprenticeships. What next? Paying for your apprenticeship with Apprentice Loans? The more I think about it, it's a complete mess really. I'm just glad I'm not 15 and having to make decisions for my future.

Frank the tank

Not read the thread as there is rather a lot of it.

It would appear a uni education looks like becoming the preserve of the well off, because there will be no way people will be able to afford to pay back massive loans. Obviously we will always need well educated people doctors, scientists etc but it will revert back to the days of old when only the "upper classes" will have a chance of getting to these kind of positions.

Perhaps a uni education should be rationed so that they can be state funded but, it would be dependent upon the potential students ability alone not his/her ability to afford.

Then other opportunities such as apprenticeships should be available for others who want to get straight into the workplace.

IMHO, I believe it's a black day for us all that further education is going to be denied to the less affluent.

OffTheBackAdam

Another stunning failure from the equality brigade! Add it to the near-abolition of grammar schools, the abolition of competition in schools and of proper teaching.
All done with the best of intentions (One hopes!) but all have conspired to put a glass ceiling on the poor.
For what it's worth, I graduated in 1982 with a BSc in Chemistry from Leicester, tried teaching (It sucked!) & wound up repping. Been doing medical sales in preference, but in cosmetic dental currently.

finchy

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Another stunning failure from the equality brigade!

Nah, this has been going on for ages, well before Labour took control. I first started looking at university when I was 16, back in '96. Even then you could get into university with a couple of Es at A-level (the grade, that is, not a couple of pills. )

Labour and Conservative higher education policies are basically the same, just wrapped up in different language.

Jez mon

spen666 wrote:

It would have been interesting to know:

a) what job each poster here does
b) whether they went to University / Poly
c) if yes to b) whether it was before/ after fees were introduced

a) Still currently doing a MEng (Undergraduate masters in mechanical engineering) atm I am working for Rolls Royce PLC for a year as a design analysis engineer for Fuel Cells
b) Only the best university for Mechanical engineering (well maybe not quite, but a well respected uni in the industry anyway)
c) Yes, but I am fortunate enough to come from a reasonably affluent family so embarrassingly enough, it's never been to much of a worry for me.

Cleat Eastwood

johnfinch wrote:

schweiz wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

For example, a Media Studies course. Easily knocked, but if they covered the technical side of the industry - how to do lighting, operate camera and sound equipment, use common publishing software etc - then students would come out with some skills which would stand them in good stead in the future.

But does that require a 3 year degree course?

No it doesn't. It could be done as an apprenticeship. IF somebody offers you one.

It does and should take 3 years, and you do learn the practice of lighting etc. But you are confusing what media studies encompasses. Its more properly a specialised branch of a social studies course. The media refers to anything in society that has meaning and theorising as to how that meaning was constructed.

Most of my friends who have entered the biz did a HND which indeed focused on the technical rather than the theoretical. To my mind though they missed out on the fundament of a university education which is the encouragement of independent thinking, meeting people from widely different cultures and backgrounds and being exposed to new ideas.

finchy

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

. But you are confusing what media studies encompasses. Its more properly a specialised branch of a social studies course. The media refers to anything in society that has meaning and theorising as to how that meaning was constructed.

No, I know what media studies is. Some of my friends and ex-colleagues studied MS at university level. They all said it was a complete and utter waste of time and money, Mickey Mouse degree, McUniversity, etc, etc.

Which is why I was saying that IF the degree had a more technical aspect, it could give them some useful skills.

Mr Smooth

Have been in life assurance/pensions all my working life
Got a degree in Marine Biology from Liverpool University
Finished in 1986, just as grants were being stopped.

Just having a degree got me into my current line of work, not sure it would these days though, would probably need to be more specific.

I did have a great time, but having to gather so much debt might have put me off, and I'm sure that's going to happen now.

Personally I'd have no issue with paying a higher rate of income tax in return for a university education - if you know what the deal is, you can make a choice.

I fail to see how upping the threshold at which you start to repay the loan will actually help - I assume interest continues to accrue whilst the loan is not being repaid, so surely the amount to be repaid will just end up being even higher?

rick_chasey

Mr Smooth wrote:

I fail to see how upping the threshold at which you start to repay the loan will actually help - I assume interest continues to accrue whilst the loan is not being repaid, so surely the amount to be repaid will just end up being even higher?

That's exactly the issue!

northernneil

johnfinch wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

. But you are confusing what media studies encompasses. Its more properly a specialised branch of a social studies course. The media refers to anything in society that has meaning and theorising as to how that meaning was constructed.

No, I know what media studies is. Some of my friends and ex-colleagues studied MS at university level. They all said it was a complete and utter waste of time and money, Mickey Mouse degree, McUniversity, etc, etc.

Which is why I was saying that IF the degree had a more technical aspect, it could give them some useful skills.

Staffordshire University did a Degree in David Beckham Studies .... would that be handy ?

finchy

northernneil wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

. But you are confusing what media studies encompasses. Its more properly a specialised branch of a social studies course. The media refers to anything in society that has meaning and theorising as to how that meaning was constructed.

No, I know what media studies is. Some of my friends and ex-colleagues studied MS at university level. They all said it was a complete and utter waste of time and money, Mickey Mouse degree, McUniversity, etc, etc.

Which is why I was saying that IF the degree had a more technical aspect, it could give them some useful skills.

Staffordshire University did a Degree in David Beckham Studies .... would that be handy ?

Unfortunately it isn't a whole degree, it's just one unit, and it's about football culture as a whole. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2000 ... ry.sport12

But if you did want to pick up some really useful skills at Staffordshire Uni, you can do their BA in Celebrity Journalism:

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/courses_and_stu ... 227143.jsp

This course will give you transferrable skills such as recognising 2008 X-Factor runners-up when you're serving them their burger.

And here is the professor responsible for Celebrity Journalism and "David Beckham studies" offering up a justification against us elitist snobs:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 8215077370

rich164h

Bartimaeus wrote:

Making individuals pay significant sums for their university education is, in my view, a big mistake, as it will be a serious disincentive to poorer applicants and to those whose families are not used to factoring 20-30 year investments.

No matter what the intention here, the effect is likely to be that a university educations will become even more of a middle-class investment, with only a token gesture to inclusiveness from expanded bursaries.

Can someone please explain this sort of thinking to me. I frequently hear stories that the system disadvantaged the poor but I just can't see it I'm afraid. All of the fees/expenses can be covered by a mixture of loans, bursaries or part time work. No money needs to be found up front, and the repayment terms and condition are identical for everyone and based upon a minimum income that is above what is usually classed as "poor". How is someone with zero cash (and I mean zero) prohibited from the same opportunites for a good education and some one with more wealth? Yes they might not be able to go to the pub as often, but that's not the point is it, and no sane person could argue that the country should pay for peoples social lives.

The bizarre thing is that in the grand scheme of things, the sort of debt being discussed here isn't even that big (although I apreciate that a recent graduate just starting out in their career may not see it that way). People don't have any problem taking out hundred of thousands of pounds for a mortgage at standard interest rates, or taking on ridiculous PCP schemes for cars, so what difference does £10-20k make when there's effectively no interest being charged and if you don't earn a good wage you don't have to repay it, and it might get written off after a certain period of time?

What it is however, is a very large amount of money if there's is no return on the investment by choosing a course that doesn't lead to greater things (be it a higher salrary in the long run, or other intelectual chalenges that you feel is worth the debt).

That decision is one that needs to be carefully thoughts through based on a realistic view of the world and what the opportunity would most likely bring. the reality is that the vast majority of graduates aren't going to end up as CEOs, city traders or earning high salaries. Just because the government doubles the number of graduates for example that doesn't mean that the number of "graduate jobs" also doubles at the other end. Someone has to do the job that previously non-graduates undertook.

From my experience (as a scientist with a PhD that that has worked in academia and now works in a hi-tech industry managing a team of people and being responsible for recruitment into my team) having a degree is almost meaningless to us. There are now so many graduates out there that it's impossible to distinguish between them soley on that degree, or university, or even grade they've attained (it's essentially the same issue as we hear every year about X% of A-Levels being at grade A - the student aren't the same calibre even if the qualifcations suggest they are). The only way we can get what we want it to meet these people and see what they're like. It means that we have to see more candidates, which costs us more time and money but it's the only way to ensure that we get the right person. I should also add that I've now lost count of the number of people with good grades form "good universities" that are almost illiterate with mulitple spelling mistakes in their CVs, verbal skills that are almost non-existant (txt speak!) and there's just no way that they offer us core business skills, or even common social skills! They may well be good at a niche topic within a particular academic field but in the real world I need them to be able to communicate effectively and have at least some degree of inquisitiveness and ability to work independantly rather than just expecting everything to be spoon fed to them. Many of them I certainly couldn't put in front of customers.

That's not to say that all "top universities" produce bad graduates, clearly that's not correct, all I'm saying is that it's becoming harder and harder to be sure that the establishment or grade they now have is an indcator of how employable they are. Looking around our company, due to the nature of our sector an MSc is pretty much the minimum these days just to get a certainly level of differentiation from the masses and independant thought, but there's a complete mixture of people ranging from Oxford and Cambridge down to local unis that most people have never heard of, and part time mature open university graduates. The common trait however is that they were chosen as they had a relevent and demonstrable skill set in the area of interest (we can provide additional technical training if required) but most importantly they had the softer and less measureable skills that we needed.

If someone wants a job with us, what I need to see is that they are keen, that they are level headed, and that they have good interpersonal skills. A good degree doesn't indicate any of that. I therefore take the very pragmatic view that I actually don't care which university they went to or even (within reason) what their grades are. To link this back to what I was saying right at the start what their background is in terms of being rich or poor is utterly irrelivent. I would certainly argue that someone who started with nothing, made decision to really go for it at a local uni, and worked hard to get a degree is a much better candiate that someone who has lived off of their parents at somewhere supposedly more prestigious. Believe me, that difference of attitude does come across in an interview, loud and clear, and I have no doubt who would offer the job to.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes university can be a good investment, and yes I stand by that even at the sums of money being talked about in today's academic world, however getting a degree is only the first part of recouping on that investment. Without thinking beyond the exams and league tables it will be a wasted opportunity and a poor investment.

finchy

rich164h wrote:

I frequently hear stories that the system disadvantaged the poor but I just can't see it I'm afraid. All of the fees/expenses can be covered by a mixture of loans, bursaries or part time work. No money needs to be found up front, and the repayment terms and condition are identical for everyone and based upon a minimum income that is above what is usually classed as "poor". How is someone with zero cash (and I mean zero) prohibited from the same opportunites for a good education and some one with more wealth?

Because facing tens of thousands of debt must be far more daunting if you don't have parents who can help you with it.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

rich164h wrote:

I frequently hear stories that the system disadvantaged the poor but I just can't see it I'm afraid. All of the fees/expenses can be covered by a mixture of loans, bursaries or part time work. No money needs to be found up front, and the repayment terms and condition are identical for everyone and based upon a minimum income that is above what is usually classed as "poor". How is someone with zero cash (and I mean zero) prohibited from the same opportunites for a good education and some one with more wealth?

Because facing tens of thousands of debt must be far more daunting if you don't have parents who can help you with it.

I have plenty of friends who have parents who earn enough so that their child gets no grant, but refuse, on principle, to help fund their education.

They really get screwed.

rich164h

Daunting? what's that got to do with anything? The issue that's often raised is that it stops poor people from having access, not that they might be a bit put off. That's also a fairly condecending standpoint as people with less money are just as able to make a judgement on whether the investment is worthwhile or not.

Yes it will of course be easier for richer people to provide additional financial support (that's true in all facets of life) but that doesn't mean that the system prohibits people without lots of money from accessing the services.

IronHorse100

johnfinch wrote:

rich164h wrote:

I frequently hear stories that the system disadvantaged the poor but I just can't see it I'm afraid. All of the fees/expenses can be covered by a mixture of loans, bursaries or part time work. No money needs to be found up front, and the repayment terms and condition are identical for everyone and based upon a minimum income that is above what is usually classed as "poor". How is someone with zero cash (and I mean zero) prohibited from the same opportunites for a good education and some one with more wealth?

Because facing tens of thousands of debt must be far more daunting if you don't have parents who can help you with it.

+1 = nail hitting head. The para quoted above is hopelessly over simplistic. Raising of fees is a disincentive to the poor. I can only see bright kids from poor backgrounds without (relative) family wealth as a safety net will see the risk and shy away. A step backwards for equality

daviesee

IronHorse100 wrote:

A step backwards for equality

I hope you mean equal opportunity? I am all for that, along with grants for the gifted.

There are deluded fools out there that believe we are all equal. They will be dissapointed.

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and they are all different. Plus, not everyone works at their full potential.

finchy

rich164h wrote:

Daunting? what's that got to do with anything? The issue that's often raised is that it stops poor people from having access, not that they might be a bit put off. That's also a fairly condecending standpoint as people with less money are just as able to make a judgement on whether the investment is worthwhile or not.

Yes it will of course be easier for richer people to provide additional financial support (that's true in all facets of life) but that doesn't mean that the system prohibits people without lots of money from accessing the services.

I went to uni at the end of the 90s, just before it started getting really expensive. My parents could help me with rent and the LEA paid 80% of my tuition fees because our family income wasn't high enough for us to be liable for any more than that, so it isn't really a condescending viewpoint. I just know what it's like coming from a family which doesn't have the money to bail me out if I end up in financial trouble.

Daunting is something you'd understand if you were 18 today, and considering whether to get a whole load of debt to start off your working life, to be added on to a gigantic mortgage if they decide to buy a house.

The issue for me is this - as you rightly point out, the number of graduate jobs is not going to expand to meet the number of graduates. So what is the most sensible way of organising our further and higher education systems? And more to the point, why are we telling students who will struggle at university to go there? Just so they can build up gigantic debts with which they'll start their working lives with a degree which confers no advantage in the job market?

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

rich164h wrote:

I frequently hear stories that the system disadvantaged the poor but I just can't see it I'm afraid. All of the fees/expenses can be covered by a mixture of loans, bursaries or part time work. No money needs to be found up front, and the repayment terms and condition are identical for everyone and based upon a minimum income that is above what is usually classed as "poor". How is someone with zero cash (and I mean zero) prohibited from the same opportunites for a good education and some one with more wealth?

Because facing tens of thousands of debt must be far more daunting if you don't have parents who can help you with it.

I have plenty of friends who have parents who earn enough so that their child gets no grant, but refuse, on principle, to help fund their education.

They really get screwed.

They don't refuse on principle. They refuse because they're c**ts.

Frank the tank

The thought of having over £30k of debt hanging over my head at such a young age would scare the sh1t out of me.

Then consider trying to save for a deposit on a property, whilst also endevouring to set up some kind of pension plan as we're always being told to do by the government and financial boffins. Oh! and if you can, try and afford youself some food and clothing so you can keep alive in the meantime.

Yes youngsters today, they don't know they've been born. :roll:

No wonder so many think they're being deserted and have no realistic chance of really getting on in life no matter how motivated they are.

I for one don't envy the younsters of today, well the ones who enter into the spirit of the law abiding masses.

sloboy

A couple of points - my daughter has just started at KCL and for one of their halls (self catering) the fees exceed the maintenance loan, so it can't simply be funded through the student load necessarily. I reckon the total cost of her 4 year course will be around 40,000+ and under the new no-cap arrangements would probably exceed 50,000.

As to one point raised (much) earlier as to why a 1st in a non-relevant subject from a top uni mark someone out as a fastrack candidate compared with some who'd been in industry since 16, it's simply that it's a proof point. The comparison doesn't say anything about the apprentice but say that the grad has a certain level of raw intellectual horsepower and maturity of whatever style that degree demands.

Tom Butcher

Be interesting to see if any universities go under. The possibility was raised on Newsnight tonight and the Tory guy (Willets?) refused to rule it out. Are people going to shell out 20k on courses from unfashionable unis? I have no idea if this is a realistic possibility but certainly here the impact would be massive.

daviesee

sloboy wrote:

A couple of points - my daughter has just started at KCL and for one of their halls (self catering) the fees exceed the maintenance loan, so it can't simply be funded through the student load necessarily. I reckon the total cost of her 4 year course will be around 40,000+ and under the new no-cap arrangements would probably exceed 50,000.

As to one point raised (much) earlier as to why a 1st in a non-relevant subject from a top uni mark someone out as a fastrack candidate compared with some who'd been in industry since 16, it's simply that it's a proof point. The comparison doesn't say anything about the apprentice but say that the grad has a certain level of raw intellectual horsepower and maturity of whatever style that degree demands.

I know a few people who were at uni, and some still there; maturity is not the first word that comes to mind to describe them.

I would argue that 3 years paying your own way (assuming living away from home) while working full time in the "real" world will mature you a whole lot quicker.